Thursday, May 23, 2013

5.25 MARCH AGAINST MONSANTO / everywhere

BAD APPLE by Michael D'Antuono
- via 
Activist Post: Provocative Portrayal of Monsanto in Support of the Worldwide March Against Them
"Activist artist Michael D'Antuono, known for his often controversial paintings on hot button issues, is now aiming his critical brush at the mega agricultural biotechnology corporation, Monsanto. "

On May 25, activists around the world will unite to March Against Monsanto

Why do we march?

Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects.

In the United States, the FDA, the agency tasked with ensuring food safety for the population, is steered by ex-Monsanto executives, and we feel that’s a questionable conflict of interests and explains the lack of government-led research on the long-term effects of GM products.

Recently, the U.S. Congress and president collectively passed the nicknamed “Monsanto Protection Act” that, among other things, bans courts from halting the sale of Monsanto’s genetically-modified seeds.

For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism. 

Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world’s food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup.

Monsanto's GM seeds are harmful to the environment; for example, scientists have indicated they have contributed to Colony Collapse Disorder among the world's bee population.

What are solutions we advocate?

Voting with your dollar by buying organic and boycotting Monsanto-owned companies that use GMOs in their products.

Labeling of GMOs so that consumers can make those informed decisions easier.

Repealing relevant provisions of the US's "Monsanto Protection Act."

Calling for further scientific research on the health effects of GMOs.

Holding Monsanto executives and Monsanto-supporting politicians accountable through direct communication, grassroots journalism, social media, etc.

Continuing to inform the public about Monsanto's secrets.

Taking to the streets to show the world and Monsanto that we won't take these injustices quietly.

We will not stand for cronyism. We will not stand for poison. That’s why we March Against Monsanto.


Find a march near you

March Against MonsantoMay 25 at 11:00am
InterOccupy | March against Monsanto, May 25, 2 PM EST EVERYWHERE
Organic Consumers Association: Millions Against Monsanto

Wednesday, May 22, 2013



Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) in the food supply and OK with the FDA??

Monsanto gets full immunity for any liability to human health thanks to the signing of the
"Monsanto Protection Act" and no labels required. We must stop this before its too late!!

Please support the World Wide March against Monsanto May 25-2013 We need you all !

On May 25, activists around the world will unite to March Against Monsanto.

see also

Monday, May 20, 2013

Tell Secretary of State John Kerry: Investigate Big Oil’s Influence on the Keystone XL Review

The State Department’s environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline is a joke. Contrary to evidence from the EPA and others, it claims that the pipeline will have minimal environmental impacts on the climate and communities along the pipeline route.
How did this happen? It turns out that he report was written by a contractor with deep ties to the oil industry. What’s worse, State Department employees attempted to hide these ties.

Send a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding that he halt the Keystone XL review process until he gets to the bottom of this cover-up and blatant conflict of interest

Tell Secretary of State John Kerry: Investigate Big Oil’s Influence on the Keystone XL ReviewFriends of the Earth

Saturday, May 18, 2013

PEBBLE MINE | Mining Crimes: Alaska

Mining Crimes

Global mining giants—including the Anglo American and Rio Tinto corporations—want to gouge one of the world’s largest open-pit gold and copper mines out of Alaska’s incomparable Bristol Bay wilderness.


TAKE ACTION 1 > Pebble Mine Project Endangers Bristol Bay, Alaska | Save BioGems

see also:
TELL RIO TINTO THAT NO MEANS NO - Take Action!: NRDC's Save BioGems Despite overwhelming local opposition, foreign mining giant Rio Tinto is pressing forward with plans to build a gargantuan, open-pit gold and copper mine above Alaska's Bristol Bay -- threatening the world's greatest sockeye salmon runs and the very last 284 beluga whales of Cook Inlet.

Bristol Bay - Running Line - American Angler Magazine

American Angler:  Most of our readers are familiar with the issues surrounding the proposed Pebble Mine in the Bristol Bay watershed. For those who are not, can you provide some background information to quickly catch them up?

Scott Hed:  The condensed version is this: The Bristol Bay region of southwest Alaska is home to the most prolific wild salmon fishery on Earth.  Nearly 40 million sockeye salmon return to the rivers and streams of Bristol Bay annually, fueling an ecosystem that includes everything from brown bears, moose, caribou, and bald eagles to trophy rainbow trout (think 30”-plus) and other game fish.  This salmon fishery supports a centuries-old Native culture, over 14,000 jobs, is worth $1.5 billion annually, and is the reason anglers dream of fishing in wild, remote Alaska.  There’s simply no place like it on the planet.  Now, consider that foreign mining interests want to develop what would be North America’s largest open-pit gold-copper-molybdenum mine at the headwaters of Bristol Bay’s two most productive salmon watersheds.  The proposed Pebble Mine would result in having to store up to 10.8 billion tons of toxic mine waste FOREVER in a known seismically-active area behind some of the largest earthen dams in the world.  Wrong idea in the wrong place, and that’s exactly why over 920 angling and hunting groups and businesses have implored the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to provide some safeguards to Bristol Bay’s waters and lands.

American Angler:  The EPA just released its revised draft of the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment. Put this in context for our readers. What is the significance? How does it differ from their last draft assessment?

Scott Hed: The revised draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment was released on Friday, April 26.  This science-based document outlines the existing values found in Bristol Bay (ecological, economic, cultural, etc.) and seeks to identify the risks to those values posed by mining proposals in the Nushagak and Kvichak River watersheds.  The first draft was released in May 2012 and received over 223,000 public comments (overwhelmingly – 95% - in favor of EPA protecting Bristol Bay).  The first draft was also peer reviewed by an independent panel of expert scientists.  EPA took the feedback from the peer experts and the public comments and sought to strengthen the document.  This revision did a number of things.  It clarified the proposed mine scenario – based upon information submitted by the mining companies themselves.  It considered the cumulative impacts of development beyond simply the proposed Pebble Mine (which is the most well-known proposal), because beyond Pebble there are 1,000 square miles of mining claims lying in wait.  That’s something a lot of people don’t realize: If Pebble were permitted, it would likely be the proverbial “foot in the door” and other mines would crop up in the region – changing things forever, in a big way.  The revision also confirmed just how unique the Bristol Bay region is relative to the significance of the salmon fishery.  And it reached the same conclusion as the first draft: Mining in this region will have significant impacts on Bristol Bay’s salmon ecosystem, and the culture, jobs, and economy it supports.  We believe it confirmed what we’ve said all along: Wrong mine, wrong place.

American Angler:  What’s the biggest challenge still facing efforts to protect Bristol Bay?

Scott Hed: While the revised draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment highlights that mining in Bristol Bay will not be good for salmon, residents of the region, commercial fishermen, or sportsmen, the document itself carries no force of law.  The challenge will be to convince President Obama that the EPA needs to take action to protect this incredible place once the final version of the Watershed Assessment is released later this year.

American Angler:  Why should anglers who have never been there or may never go care what happens in Bristol Bay?

Scott Hed:  In my job, I have essentially played the role of Johnny Appleseed – traveling the USA talking to anglers and hunters about Bristol Bay and the proposed Pebble Mine project.  Anglers I meet typically fall into two categories: Those who have been to Alaska and can’t wait to return, and those who’ve not been there yet but dream of going someday.  Alaska truly is a bucket list destination for anyone who loves the outdoors.  It’s the Last Frontier you’ve imagined, but better than you could ever wish for.  That said, the proposal to build monstrous mines in what many consider to be the “best of the best” when it comes to remote Alaska fishing is a dark cloud on the horizon.  This one we need to nip in the bud, because I’ve long said that if something like Pebble Mine can be built in a place like Bristol Bay, then I fear everything is on the table, nothing at all is off limits.  Where do you draw the line?  This seems like a place we need to stand our ground.  Sportsmen from catch and release anglers to big game hunters and companies that sell us fishing gear to firearms have joined this effort.  And we need anyone and everyone who loves the outdoors to stand with us.

American Angler:  The EPA is allowing public comments on this issue. Is this this the best way for angler’s to get involved?

Scott Hed:  Yes, anglers should visit to submit their official comment to the EPA.  While we dominated the public commentary on the first draft of the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, we need to do so again.  The comment period is scheduled to conclude on May 31st, so please help now and encourage all your friends to do the same.

American Angler:  The EPA is scheduled to finalize the assessment by the end of 2013. What happens next?

Scott Hed:  Once the EPA releases a final version of the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, which they have stated they intend to do in 2013, then we need to convince the Obama Administration that it needs to act to protect the residents of Bristol Bay and the 14,000 hard-working Americans who depend on the region’s abundance.  What should the President rely upon?  The rock-solid scientific evidence of the Watershed Assessment or the influence and fleeting promises of multi-national mining companies?  We will need to show the President that sportsmen are with him on this issue, should he choose to take action.

American Angler:  Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. released a statement last week regarding the revised draft. Comments? Thoughts?

Scott Hed:  Just what you’d expect.  Bashing the EPA and trying to mislead the public.  How easy is that?  They’ve dumped millions of dollars into a public relations campaign but they still can’t buy public sentiment.  This is a bad idea, and they’re trying to convince everyone otherwise.  The revised draft of the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment takes information straight from the mining companies’ own documents and shows how development of one or more large mines in Bristol Bay simply cannot happen without significant impacts to the most productive wild salmon fishery on the planet.  EPA has the legal authority and the obligation to protect places like Bristol Bay from toxic mining waste.  The developers have a problem with that I guess.

Bristol Bay - Running Line - American Angler Magazine

TAKE ACTION 1 > Pebble Mine Project Endangers Bristol Bay, Alaska | Save BioGems


Wednesday, May 15, 2013

What's safe to eat? How can we know? | WHOI : Oceanus : Seafood Safety and Policy

The first trial sale of octopus caught off Fukushima began in June 2012, 15 months after the Dai-ichi nuclear plant explosion. (Yomiuri Shimbun via AP Images)

In Japan, a nation that eats prodigious amounts of seafood, one question sits high on the list of public concerns: Is seafood caught after the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe safe for human consumption?

In the wake of the disaster, coastal fisheries in Fukushima and all neighboring precincts were quickly closed. Within two weeks, the Japanese government began monitoring radioactivity in fish, shellfish, and edible seaweeds. More than a year later, not because of new scientific findings or any changes in offshore conditions, but in an attempt to further reassure consumers, the government lowered the acceptable limit for radiation in fish from 500 becquerels per kilogram—already among the strictest standards in the world—to 100 Bq.

Last fall, Ken Buesseler, a marine geochemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, combed through a year’s worth of data released by the Japanese fisheries agency. His analysis, published Oct. 26, 2012, in the journal Science, showed that the “vast majority” of fish being caught off Fukushima and surrounding areas had radiation levels below the tightened safe-consumption limit. Among bottom-dwelling species, however, 40 percent came in over that limit. Most important, levels of radiation in the ocean and in seafood did not appear to be declining in the 12 months following the accident.

To Buesseler and others, this persistence is strong evidence of a continuing source of radiation leaking into the environment. Fish naturally lose cesium quite quickly, about 3 percent per day, if they are not re-exposed to some additional cesium source. At the same time, Buesseler acknowledged, the remaining concentrations of radionuclides in fish are generally quite low—lower than limits in force in the United States, and lower than the amount of radiation naturally present in seawater.

Still, public anxiety in Japan remains high. With the exception of a few unaffected species such as whelk and octopus, fisheries remain closed off Fukushima prefecture. And disturbing outliers—individual fish with exceedingly high levels of radiation—continue to turn up. At the Fukushima and the Ocean conference in Tokyo in November 2012, experts drawn from various fields examined the issues surrounding seafood safety. Their spirited conversation ranged well beyond the science...

more > WHOI : Oceanus : Seafood Safety and Policy
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Sunday, May 12, 2013

newpapers are down temporarily

sorry folks - the papers are temporarily down, hopefully back up soon! < #RCDaily #OcNuke #OcNukeDaily #OccupyNuclear

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

99 One-Liners Rebutting Denier Talking Points — With Links To The Full Climate Science | ThinkProgress

Progressives should know the disinformers’ most commonly used arguments — and how to answer them crisply. Those arguments have been repeated so many times by the fossil-fuel-funded disinformation campaign that almost everyone has heard them — and that means you’ll have to deal with them in almost any setting, from a public talk to a dinner party.
You should also know as much of the science behind those rebuttals as possible, and a great place to start is
BUT most of the time your best response is to give the pithiest response possible, and then refer people to a specific website  that has a more detailed scientific explanation with links to the original science. That’s because usually those you are talking to are rarely in a position to adjudicate scientific arguments. Indeed, they would probably tune out. Also, unless you know the science cold, you are as likely as not to make a misstatement.
Physicist John Cook has done us a great service by posting good one-line responses and then updating them as the science evolves and as people offer better ways of phrasing. Below I have reposted the top 99 with links to the science. You can find even more here. Everybody should know the first 20 or so...

more > 99 One-Liners Rebutting Denier Talking Points — With Links To The Full Climate Science | ThinkProgress

Nuclear vs. Solar: Corporate Profits and Public Risk - The Equation

Crowd headed for the sun

"There are lots of reasons to choose solar over nuclear.  Solar power does not draw water from reservoirs or rivers. Solar power does not have safety risks that go on for years without being corrected. No waste from solar plants can be used to make bombs.  But maybe I have already made up my mind. I have invested my own money to put solar panels on my own roof.  My risk, my power supply, my choice. 
"Where nuclear power proposals do not face a test of competition or even comparison with alternatives, lawmakers should require utility regulators to have power companies conduct a comprehensive integrated resource planning process where energy efficiency and renewables are on a level playing field with other supply options.
"If the owners of a nuclear power plant are willing to take a risk with their own money, maybe they don’t need to justify their choice. But if the money at risk is YOURS, and there is NO review, seems like the state government should get more involved in protecting the consumer."

Nuclear vs. Solar: Corporate Profits and Public Risk - The Equation

In the Sunshine State (Florida) and nearby states of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, proposals for new nuclear power plants stand in stark contrast to lower risk, less expensive energy alternatives. Consumers in these states have already donated $6 Billion to the utilities’ nuclear ambitions. The charges that can be collected without the consumer seeing a benefit are estimated for the reactors: Summer 2 & 3, (South Carolina) $10.4 billion; Vogtle (Georgia) $14.5 – $18.2 billion; Levy (Florida), $15.1 to $21.6 billion, and Turkey Point (Florida) $12.8 to $18.7 billion.
Costs and Risks, On You
The long and uncertain process for permitting and building nuclear power plants creates costsand risks. The utilities that continue to pursue nuclear power permitting and construction all have protections from their state regulators thatthe risks and costs for nuclear plant development will be paid by consumers, without regard to progress or success of these efforts. Utility consumers are paying for these plants through rate increases before the plants begin producing any energy. A UCS-sponsored study of costs projected the Levy power plant could add $700 to residential electric customers’ annual electric bill by the year 2021, which might be when the plant begins to produce electricity. What the final cost will actually be, no one knows...

more > Nuclear vs. Solar: Corporate Profits and Public Risk - The Equation
The Equation - a blog on independent science practical solution
Union of Concerned Scientists

Friday, May 3, 2013

An Open Letter to Bank of America - PSR: Physicians for Social Responsibility

Join us in asking the Bank of America to phase out loans to the coal industry and fossil fuel-burning utilities, and greatly increase their loans to clean, safe, carbon-free and nuclear-free renewable energy sources. Banks contribute to climate change through their financed emissions -- the emissions induced by a bank’s loans to and investments in companies that emit greenhouse gases. Bank of America is one of the largest financiers of coal mining, mountaintop removal, and dirty coal-fired power plants. We’re working with a wide coalition of organizations to ask Bank of America to “clean up” their loan portfolio by phasing out those loans and investing instead in clean, safe, carbon-free and nuclear-free renewable energy sources. Add your name to our letter to Bank of America. I’ll be delivering it next week at their shareholder meeting in Charlotte, NC. I’d love to have your signature on it.

An Open Letter to Bank of America
We, the undersigned physicians, health professionals, and members of Physicians for Social Responsibility, urge the Bank of America to phase out its portfolio of loans to companies engaged in extracting, processing, or burning fossil fuels.  The carbon dioxide from those activities is the single biggest factor causing climate change and the associated severe health risks to the world’s population.
As the earth warms, the delicate balance of climate, weather events and life is being disrupted.  Consequences are already emerging that threaten human health and, ultimately, survival. 
  • Heat waves contribute to heat stroke, which can lead to delirium, convulsions, coma, and death.  More than 70,000 people died due to the European heat wave of 2003.
  • Drought is causing large-scale crop loss, driving up world food prices and worsening malnutrition and famine. 
  • Wildfires increase dangerous particulate air pollution.
  • High summer temperatures increase ground-level ozone, provoking asthma attacks and aggravating diseases like bronchitis and emphysema. Repeated exposure may cause asthma in previously healthy people and permanently scar lung tissue.
  • Changes in climate are increasing the range of infectious diseases carried by insects, including malaria, West Nile virus, dengue and Lyme disease.
  • Severe storms now threaten communities on a far more frequent basis than seen before.
  • Rising sea levels will create millions of environmental refugees.
Bank of America, as a top financier of companies whose industries contribute disproportionately to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions – such industries such as coal mining, oil and gas production, and fossil fuel-based electric power generation –facilitates these climate-induced threats to health and survival. 
Yet as a top financier, you are also in a position to do great good.  We ask you to phase out your loans to fossil fuel industries and greatly increase your portfolio of loans to clean, safe, carbon-free and nuclear-free renewable energy sources.

Survey - An Open Letter to Bank of America - PSR: Physicians for Social Responsibility